If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor. “I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

“California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

imported post

California proscribes loaded carry in cities (12031 PC) and concealed carry generally when not on your own property (12025PC).An exemption to both of those prohibitions and others (626.9, 171betc) exists when in possession of aLicense To Carry pistols (12050PC).

Although this suit appears on it face to deal only with the "CCW" issue, it is not clearthat Open Carry is prohibited when carrying loaded AND in possession of a License To Carry. That issue has not been addressed in CA law or courts, (which is likely a case for another day).

The Supreme Court did not address "licensing" in Heller when they commanded DC to issue Heller a license to carry in the home. Lower courts are likely to require license issuance in their decisions if one is available under state lawuntillicensing is squarely addressed by SCOTUS. Arguing against licensing at this time risks sinking the more basic issue of "Carry".

Many state supreme courts have found that their state RKBA statutes allow for either unregulated open carry or licensed carryout side of the home. So far only Vermont has found an unregulated Concealed Carry Right.

It would be quite remarkable if a right to carry concealed is established in the 9th Circuit. And although I believe that OPEN CARRY is more clearly the CARRY RIGHT that the Supreme Court will recognize, once the 9th has secured wide 12050PC Licenses to Carry issuance it is my hope (and I suspect the hope also of Gura and Kilmer and CGF/SAF)we may very well end up with both options in CA and a legislature which has been neutered legally on both issues.

The other side is going to argue that discretionary 12050PC license issuance is allowedbecause CA doesn't proscribe Open Carry generally. That is a weak argument with the existence of loaded ban in Cities (12031PC) and School Zonelocked &amp; unloaded requirement (626.9 PC).

But what we may getis a ruling in which the 9th finds that 12050 as isis OKsince the "2A is notoffended by prohibitions on Concealed Weapons" - Heller citing Robertson v Baldwin. That will mean that a 12031PC or 626.9PC suit will necessarily follow to secure Loaded Open Carry as the protected Right.

imported post

Here is a new thought!

This suit deals with PC12050 which along with a "concealed license"includes a 2nd type oflicense to carry "loaded and exposed"in certain low population counties (200,000 or less). If "good cause" and "moral character" are found unconstitutional what stands is a "shall issue" law with "shall issue" L&amp;E licenses. If ConditionThree can get a shall issue loaded and exposed license then why can't someone in LA County? It would seem to invite an equal protectionargument to invalidate the arbitrary 200,000 pop. limit IMO...

imported post

cato wrote:

Here is a new thought!

This suit deals with PC12050 which along with a "concealed license"includes a 2nd type oflicense to carry "loaded and exposed"in certain low population counties (200,000 or less). If "good cause" and "moral character" are found unconstitutional what stands is a "shall issue" law with "shall issue" L&amp;E licenses. If ConditionThree can get a shall issue loaded and exposed license then why can't someone in LA County? It would seem to invite an equal protectionargument to invalidate the arbitrary 200,000 pop. limit IMO...

I fixed it for you.

and you are correct- thestatute as written creates two classes of citizens who should have exactly the same rights under law. There can be no distinction made between groups of people based on where they live. Its like saying your rights end when you step across a line on the map ALA the 12031 incorporated areas issue.

imported post

Then I have to ask... Why is a license required to carry open and loaded within an incorporated city, but when present in unincorporated areas a license is not required to carry open and loaded, even if in a city?

imported post

demnogis wrote:

Then I have to ask... Why is a license required to carryloaded and exposedwithin an incorporated city, but when present in unincorporated areas a license is not required to carry loaded and exposed, even if in a city?

Fixed it. Again.

Valid question.

12031 makes carrying loaded illegal in defined areas. Those who are licensed to carry pursuant to 12050 are exempted. A license is not required for activities that are not otherwise regulated (ie: loaded and exposed in unicorporated territory.)

The only reason you would need a license to carry loaded and exposed is to carry loaded and exposed inside 12031 prohibited areas- (ie; incorporated city limits and discharge prohibited areas regulated by local ordinance). All the other exemptions such as 171b, 626.9 et al would also apply.

imported post

demnogis wrote:

Then I have to ask... Why is a license required to carry open and loaded within an incorporated city, but when present in unincorporated areas a license is not required to carry open and loaded, even if in a city?

For the sake of claritylets not talk about a "city" but rather INcorporated and UNincorporatedterritory incounties.

A 12050PC "loaded and exposed" license is only available and only valid within the county of issuance which hasa population of less then 200,000 as of the last census (none has ever been issued to our knowledge).

A L&amp;E licenseexempts one from 12031PC while in anINcorporatedor Unincoporated territorywhere 12031 would otherwise apply and also from 626.9 and171b in all parts of that county (places where UOCs can't now carry openly).

Sans L&amp;E license one can still LOC where otherwise lawful in CA (generally only in UNincorporated territory where there is no county ordinance against discharge - ie:99% of UNincorporated Kern County - except Kern County owned or maintained parks).